Prime Minister Christopher Luxon almost didn’t get to speak at Waitangi following a powhiri welcoming the Coalition Government onto the marae.
Many speakers challenged the Government for proceeding with the Act Party’s Treaty Principles Bill which would redefine the interpretation of Te Tiriti O Waitangi.
Protestors drowned out speeches from the Act and New Zealand First parties and Luxon was only able to make his remarks after being led onto the porch of the whare to speak.
Sadly, his speech fell flat. Rather than respond to the issues raised by a series of speakers, he mostly talked about his economic development programme.
He did say the struggle to understand the Treaty was part of New Zealand history and “that work” was still happening and would continue.
The rest of the speech was a regular stump speech outlining the priorities of his new Government: cut regulation, grow the economy, improve education, crack down on crime, and so on.
It was these things that would help Māori and non-Māori “get ahead” and would be where he was focused. He didn’t answer calls to toss out the Treaty Principles Bill.
Work to do
Pita Tipene, chair of the Waitangi National Trust, said he’d hoped to hear the Prime Minister speak about Te Tiriti and He Whakaputanga (the Declaration of Independence).
“There was a focus on outcomes and actions, which is good, but we are here at Waitangi because we needed to talk about Te Tiriti O’ Waitangi more”.
Luxon later said he was just responding to prompts related to the Waitangi Forum which were what would the country look like in 2040 and what needs to be done to get there.
Tipene said the various parties involved in the debate were “talking past each other” and the relationship with the new Government was progressing at a “glacial pace”.
He echoed the words of Waitangi National Trust chief executive, Ben Dalton, who summed up the day’s speeches as showing that “we’ve got a lot of work to do”.
In a press conference on Tuesday, Luxon reiterated that the National Party didn’t support a referendum on the Treaty and didn’t have any “intention” to do so in the future.
Referendum struggles
The Act Party looks increasingly isolated with both its coalition partners signaling they will oppose the Bill after its first reading and block it from becoming law.
In a press conference, Act Party leader David Seymour said he hoped public support during the select committee phase could convince National and NZ First to vote in favor.
Opponents of the Bill want the Prime Minister to scrap it before it goes through public submissions to the select committee stages which could potentially be divisive.
Shane Jones, deputy leader of NZ First, said it was significant to see different leaders from the key Māori groups—Rātana, the Kīngitanga, and Ngāpuhi—sitting together as mana whenua.
“Generally, they come together when there is a common foe. I hope today I didn’t represent a common foe,” he said.
42 Comments
Luxon holds his ground. Does not buy into the prancing and posturing. Very skilled.
Of course the opposition does not want a referendum. Because it would be massively voted yes. If you don't intend to vote yes, read Seymour's wording and tell me what you specifically disagree with
KH. Judgement that his speech 'fell flat' will please Luxon. Droning speeches that are carefully crafted to dodge elephants but fill the allotted time with earnestly dull platitudes are a long practiced tactic of executives. Try not to smirk at the frustrated media on your way out of the room.
he has not submitted a proposed bill yet so how do you know what is in it, all you can do is go off his speeches which are vague and full of rhetoric.
below is all they have so far and what does it even mean, does it mean there is no treaty document and whatever injustices the government committed in the past are wiped from the books ?
a very dangerous precedent that affects not just maori if they turn this into a law
if you pass a law absolving the government from past wrongs that means nobody pakeha or maori or any other person could not take the government to court over redress for past failings.
i would need to see the wording of his Bill before passing judgement and being the ACT party whom core belief is every man for himself. i am sceptical it would be a good thing for NZ
Our Proposal
ACT proposes that the next government passes legislation that says all citizens have the same political rights, then ask the people to vote on it becoming law.
https://www.act.org.nz/defining-the-treaty-principles
Not hard to find...if you try looking
Sharetrader. Seymour is quite specific, and I think you know this. The proposal to be voted on is.
It would define the Principles of the Treaty as.
1. The New Zealand Government has the right to govern New Zealand.
2. The New Zealand Government will protect all New Zealanders’ authority over their land and other property
3. All New Zealanders are equal under the law, with the same rights and duties.
Suggest you tell us what you don't like about them. That would be more useful than claiming rhetoric.
these are the principles as defined by the high court in 1989
he is just trying to stop paying for redress of government wrongs of the past
These principles were:
- The government has the right to govern and make laws.
- Iwi have the right to organise as iwi, and, under the law, to control their resources as their own.
- All New Zealanders are equal before the law.
- Both the government and iwi are obliged to accord each other reasonable cooperation on major issues of common concern.
- The government is responsible for providing effective processes for the resolution of grievances in the expectation that reconciliation can occur.
that is the point that most people don't get or know, they think most land was got by the government or people acting for the government of the day for a couple of muskets and blankets when in reality most of the land was stolen,
we are lucky that past claims have been settled for cents on the dollar owed and now ACT is trying to rewrite that so that no redress can be claimed.
and if your think that will only be for maori you will be wrong as the public works act allows the government/ council to acquire your land for public works and if they don't use it to offer it back which in the past they have not done, and many many people have taken the government to court for redress.
if they pass this law then that will also affect those cases, so much for a party about individual land rights
There was land confiscated from murderous rebel groups, whose actions were in clear breach of the treaty. That was a very very low percentage of New Zealand's area.
Prior to 1840 there was a real mess in land purchase with fraud on both sides. The treaty specified government would be the future purchaser, to stop that rubbish. It did, and the government then spent several decades reviewing past actions and sorting it out.
The benefit of proper systems and law.
As for 'stolen' there was bugger all. It was well sorted. Of course there remained aggrieved litigants on both sides
the Crown began to confiscate more Māori land. Under the New Zealand Settlements Act 1863, the Crown could confiscate the land of any iwi ‘engaged in rebellion’ against the government.
Altogether 1.3 million hectares of Māori land was confiscated, including most of the lower Waikato, Taranaki and the Bay of Plenty.
An example of raupatu by the Crown was seen in Parihaka in 1881. The settlement at Parihaka symbolised peaceful resistance to raupatu. Crown troops arrested the leaders of the community, destroyed the village and took the land for the Crown.
NZ encompasses a total land area of approx 26.8 million hectares
I'm pretty sure the mot powerful country in the world at the time didn't sign anything as generous as the modern 'interpretation'.
It's a fantasy to think a few disparate tribes who hadn't even reached the iron age would hold such a powerful negotiating hand.
Rectifying land confiscated is another issue. But no way should non Maori be second class citizens
This debate about Treaty principles and a referendum feels manufactured and seems to be the current government's equivalent of the flag debate. Who else sees this? It works perfectly as an issue which triggers opposing parties emotionally, so as to persuade them to switch off the rational, thinking part of their brain.
Makes me wonder what we should be focusing on and scrutinising instead that may slip by whilst all the air is being sucked out of the room by discussion of a law change that Luxon has made clear won't make it to first base. A flat tax perhaps? A much-desired reform, which for the right, dates back to the 1980s. Watch this space.
"Opponents of the Bill want the Prime Minister to scrap it before it goes through public submissions to the select committee stages which could potentially be divisive."
The last 3 years blatant attempts to embed the antidemocratic unmandated ethnostate have gone past "divisive". You reap what you sow.
It seems like Act and NZF obviously aren't confident about being part of a 2nd term National coalition because of how gun hoe aggressive they've been to attack the Law built around the Treaty.
They're in Government only to vandalize decades of legal precedent and legislation. Zero gravitas.
Gun hoe?!
Careful you don't get all gung ho and shoot your foot with one of those :)
Phrase started by a kiwi apparently!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gung_ho
The legal precedents and legislation have been wrong since the 1980s when the “treaty principals” were invented out of thin air. If you’re going to use the word “vandalism” then it more aptly describes the last labour labour government who took a wrecking ball to the economy during the covid years, and fanned the flames of racial division. It's all incredibly unproductive, but the labour government brought it to focus. If your ideas can’t withstand debate or scrutiny, then your position is untenably weak.
If the British Empire intended that the ToW created a Partnership / co governance / co government the original english Treaty document would have explicitly stated that.
The last 50 years of historical revisionism by the Waitangi Tribunal with the connivance of craven politicians on both sides of the house & unelected academics & judiciary facilitating their racist discrimination agenda is a disgrace to the NZ people who have the right to determine their own democratic state.
Sir Apirana Ngata spoke eloquently to reconciling this a century ago
https://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/tm/scholarly/tei-NgaTrea-t1-g1-t1.html
If by real work you mean protecting our democratic principles then the bill is actually "real work" . The headline below is from RNZ and it highlights exactly what is going wrong with democratic process
And it was only by default that the same outcome didnt take place in Rotorua
I 100% support David and ACT's bill process and remain confident that it will become law
Ngāi Tahu will get guaranteed representation and decision-making powers on the Canterbury regional council.
It has already been made abundantly clear by a majority of the coalition government that the Treaty Principles Bill will not pass into law. You'd have to have been living in a cave to think otherwise. The electoral cycle is very short in NZ so focus on doing stuff, not on arguments that won't be resolved
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.